Why I don't, PERSONALLY, like John Edwards - it has nothing to do with Clark

In answer to the many here who ASSUME I dislike John Edwards because I'm a Wesley Clark fan, I have decided to disclose my personal reasons why he leaves a horrid taste in my mouth - none of which have anything to do with Wesley Clark.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, I was at home with my son suffering with an abscesed tooth. I was also separated from my first husband, a Muslim man from Jordan. Despite our separation, I was still very close to his family, particularly his brother, who was studying animal science at North Carolina State University.

As the news came out throughout the day that the act was allegedly carried out by Muslim extremists (other theories aside), I became anxious because of my last name on the mailbox and the fact that I was alone with a 2-year-old with no way to defend myself against people who might want to do us harm simply because of our last name. There was a rash of attacks against Muslims that week, in my neighborhood and throughout the nation. I'm sure many of you remember it. Heck, some idiots attacked people because they LOOKED Muslim, whether they were or not.

I couldn't help but think that Americans needed a swift education into Islam and how these extremists were no more Muslim than Jim Koresh or Timothy McVeigh were Christian.

My brother-in-law agreed. He was a member, at the time, of a very large and very influential Muslim organization in North Carolina. The Raleigh-Durham/Research Triangle area of North Carolina has a very large population of Muslims - one of the largest, if not THE largest, in the South.

As a high-ranking representative of this large organization, my b-i-l sought to meet with his senators and representatives to orchestrate an initiative that would help educate the people of North Carolina and the country about Islam, as well as other faiths that weren't, well, Southern Baptist or something known to most Southerners. The initiative sought to turn something good out of something so horrific - to educate people about Islam, about other faiths - an outreach to a greiving nation.

His senator refused to meet with the group. And this group is no small organization.

But, my b-i-l wasn't deterred. He met with other members of his congressional delegation - Republican and Democratic - and the movement picked up some momentum. So, his organization requested yet another meeting with their senator and they was refused again.

When I was deciding on a candidate to support in 2003, I called my brother-in-law and asked him about John Edwards since my b-i-l lives in North Carolina. I hadn't known that the senator he sought to meet with, but was denied on several occassions, was John Edwards. Hell, I thought it was the Republican (Elizabeth Dole) But, he sighed and told me that it was, indeed, Edwards. Very "Democratic" of him, don't you think? Not. There were other reasons my b-i-l didn't support Edwards and he told me some of them.

My b-i-l told me that many people tried to get Edwards' support in helping to sponsor legislation or, in the event that wasn't necessary, get him to support, via the bully pulpit, programs that would have aided the American public in a better understanding Islam - something we've needed to do for a long, long time, given our interests there. But, he just ignored them. Ignored my b-i-l, ignored the many members of his organization, ignored a large constituency of people who would become Democratic voters in 2004, ignored any attempt to help - when we so obviously needed it. I'm sure there is no liberal who doesn't believe education and understanding are keys to peace.

Edwards was too busy sponsoring the Patriot Act, voting to support the IWR and making quotes like this: "The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

This story may not seem like a lot to some of you, but it is to me: a Southern mom raising a half-Arabic child in a place where if you're not Southern Baptist, then "there must be something wrong with you." My No. 1 goal after 9/11 was to try to inform the people around me that Islam was not inheriently evil - my b-i-l's organization and their goals could have aided MY goal. It could have helped people see that killing 650,000 innocent Iraqi's because of a few nutballs was stupid beyond belief.

My b-i-l has, btw, found other avenues for his ideals of interfaith leadership and understanding, so Edwards didn't deter him (http://www.ackland.org/fivefaiths/ - Fantastic, isn't it?), but Edwards certainly didn't help him, either.

I have since found a lot of reasons to dislike Edwards - the personal story above, coupled with his actions after 9/11 and his DLC backing are enough. His association with Gen. Shelton before and after Shelton's unsubstantiated remarks about Wesley Clark after I became a Clark supporter in September 2003 certainly didn't help matters, but it wasn't the soul reason for my distrust of the man. Not even close.

And that old jealousy bit? :rofl:

Why, exactly, would I be jealous of Edwards? Clark bested him in five of the eight contests in which they both competed (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html); Clark didn't want to be the VP candidate with Kerry, from published reports, so that didn't matter; Clark correctly advised the Congress against going to war in Iraq (and convinced every Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, EXCEPT Edwards) and was the No. 1 requested surrogate by Dems running for Congress in 2006, particularly when they visited red areas of their states. There's nothing to be jealous of.

Should Edwards become the nominee, then I shall leave this energetic, entertaining and enlightened board because I would not, in good conscious, be able to abide by the DU rule of supporting the Dem nominee. I may be convinced to support HRC or Vilsack, even, but not Edwards, ever. I would vote for Obama, even though I don't think he has a shot in hell of winning, but I couldn't do that for Edwards. I happen to love Gore, adore Kucinich and think well of Biden, even if I don't agree with him on several issues. I could fall in line and support them. But not Edwards.

I would hope it never comes to that.

So, the next time someone says, "You must be jealous of him" or "You don't like him because he takes Clark's press" or "this sounds like sour grapes" or all of that nonsense, then I plan to simply point them to this post. I cannot be jealous of someone for no reason and Edwards hasn't ever given me a reason. I simply think he's not up for the job, on his own, without anything to do with Clark or Gore or Obama or whomever I end up supporting.

My dislike of Edwards is a distrust and once someone has lost my trust, then there's not much they can do to win it back.

Now flame away, Edwards supporters. Just note, that nothing you say will convince me otherwise. I've heard everything I need to hear from the man and, short of his jumping down via parachute and stopping the Iraqi War and poverty single-handedly, will deter my distrust.

This has nothing to do with Wesley Clark and everything to do with John Edwards.

And I understand why you feel the way you do.

So I guess I understand.

I know from his DC staff that they don't know anything about this. I know someone well in his old office who would know. He was in DC (See Elizabeth Edwards book about it) and his family was there. Any chance that he couldn't meet in NC? That the NC staff said he wasn't coming down? Edwards immediately called for solidarity with American Muslims in order to defuse violent retaliation. I think there must be more here.

chosen candidate. Lewis Black had a funny line about Edwards:

If Edwards runs again, he's always good because he's got that big grin, which leads you to believe he's slightly retarded.

:7

:)

Sorry, that's just another apocryphal story as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not even supporting Edwards. But I'll listen to him and Clark and Obama and Kerry and whoever else and pick a candidate on my own terms- not because of some story spewed out in an unpleasant way by some anonymous internet poster.

Clark supporters. I'm sure that throws your whole theory off, but it's the truth and YOU have to deal with it, not me.

I don't lump all Clark supporters together. I'm just not about to let the story of some anonymous person on the internet, be determinative about my choice of a candidate. Now what is it exactly that I have to "deal" with?

something against Edwards, you say it's "sour grapes." I'm explaining that it's not, in my case, and that I don't like Edwards for a myriad of other reasons that have nothing to do with my support of Wesley Clark.

I've seen you do it several times, cali. Don't deny it.

That said, yes, I hope you research every potential candidate very thoroughly, as I did and do, and make your decisions based on that, but keep in mind that not everyone who dislikes Edwards does so because they support someone else. Remember that they may support someone else because they DON'T like some of the things that Edwards did, not the other way around.

That was the point of my story.

denigrating Edwards, and yes that tends to make me take their criticism with a grain of salt. And some of it has been really nasty, not just towards Edwards, but towards people supporting him. Nope, I don't like that. I don't think everyone who supports Clark doesn't like Edwards because of Clark, but there's surely some of that. Your post appears to be a reasonable explanation of your distaste for Edwards, but as I mentioned, I don't know you and it's only one side of the story.

:applause:

most of us have assumed names here. so that makes all our posts questionable?

yeah, we're as credible as those candidates you'll be listening to who could be saying anything to get elected.

I have many reservations about Edwards but, beyond not trusting him is that I have heard so many stories similar to yours about him. His posturing and ignoring his state. They felt he started running for president the moment he got elected senator and forgot about his state.
I feel you look at a guys record and actions to see how he will perform as president.
Myself, I support Obama. He is my senator and has been very busy in the senate and a really good senator who takes his responsibilities so serious that he refuses to fly on any private planes. he's afraid he'll loose touch with the people and wants to stay grounded.
I feel the people of North Carolina deserved better. And since there were several of the same complaints about him I knew there was truth in them.
I really like his wife. but, Edwards himself is too slick by half. His image is so crafted and he doesn't seem to be an original thinker, which we will need to fix the mirad of problems facing us.

I called him in August 2003, I think it was, to ask him about Edwards. I was researching ALL the 2004 primary candidates. I did some healthy research before I threw my support behind someone.

Not only did my b-i-l mention his personal story, above, but he also said the things you just mentioned - about people feeling as though Edwards ignored the state. My b-i-l was the first person from whom I heard the nickname, "Senator Gone," in reference to Edwards.

While his story is very personal and obviously effected me, he did say that others weren't happy with Edwards' leadership on other matters, so that, along with the other stuff I researched online, caused me to cross Edwards off my list back then.

Kerry, btw, was my second favorite after Clark.

I would have snarfed after reading your post.

You wrote: "They (N.Carolinians) felt he (Edwards) started running for president the moment he got elected senator and forgot about his state."

Then, with a straight face, you write: "Myself, I support Obama. He is my senator and has been very busy in the senate and a really good senator who takes his responsibilities so serious that he refuses to fly on any private planes."
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :wow: :wow: :wow:


What has Obama done as a senator over the past two years (his only two years) but run for President???????!!!!!!!!

I was thinking the same thing.

and she said the same thing.

***he started running for president the moment he got elected senator and forgot about his state.***


:(

Which is too bad. I LIKE him. I think he's electable. I think he has some GREAT ideas. I think his wife is wonderful!

Personally, I think he ran "too soon". He should have stayed a Senator and run this or next time.

He'd still make a good VP candidate this time.

I don't have a candidate yet, but the pecking order from bottom down is
Joementum
Edwards
voters for IWR
Candidates to consider voting for

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:102:./temp/~... :

And of course this:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored.

The fact that Edwards was a co-sponsor of Lieberman's S.J.RES.46 and not H.J. Res 114 is a technicality. Are you aware of any substantive differences? If the one Edward's co-sponsored was better than the one that passed then that would matter to me, otherwise it does not. Edwards co-sponsored a bill introduced in the Senate that was identical to IWR that passed first in the House and then in the Senate.

I am not writing Edwards off. I want to hear more from him on this issue.

=========================

H.J.RES.114 - Sponsored by Rep Hastert, J. Dennis Cosponsors (136)
Passed into law.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:

=================

S.J.RES.46
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. Cosponsors (16)
Related Bills: H.J.RES.114, S.J.RES.45
For further action, see H.J.Res. 114, which became Public Law 107-243 on 10/16/2002.

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as feasible (but not later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@D&summ2=m&

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P
but him also voting on that Liberman version shows how determined he was to get the strongest * version (didn't daschle say there was one version that included use of the armed forces in the US?)

here's the DU thread on IWR co-sponsors:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3012797

nm

I would have trouble deciding among Gore, Clark, and Edwards; but otherwise, Edwards is head-and-shoulders over all the rest.

to vote for Edwards.

I was merely recounting why I wouldn't.

:hi:

:hug:

Edwards has always made me uncomfortable, and I've not been able to figure out why ... you just helped me understand.

I grew up around Muslims. They're good people, and no different from the rest of us. It's really sad to see them associated in the same box as the fanatic idiots in Al Queda. I guess that's part of Bush's strategy: fear fear fear.

Hang in there ... and I wish your brother-in-law's organization all the luck in the world to undo the damage made by this administration.

Powerful story, but you can expect a few replies which are at total odds.
Everyone, I suppose, comes to their own conclusions based on their own logic and emotions. Each of us has the notion that his own position is the most valid and reasonable.

Thanks for sharing-your own tragedy makes me a little less sensitive to my own.

I actually have a story I'll post sometime with a personal family (my family) complaint about another candidate, and it's actually about a candidate who I stick up for quite often.

Well said, interesting and enlightening post, btw. Recommended.

I have found out here that those w/ candidate names or images in their screename, avatar or signature are often wlling to say anything in support of their fave or anything against thsoe who they see as the main rival. Why are you any different?

Take it or leave it.

You don't have to believe me, but if I merely made up the whole scenario above, then I need to be hired by the Republicans for my abilities to weave fantasy through a filter. :rofl:

Seriously, it is a true story.

I simply can't take anyone seriously who has already incorporated a candidate's name or picture in their screen name, avatar, or sig line. IMO, they have identified themselves as a partisan camp follower blinded to other possibilities.

I am still praying for a charismatic populist to emerge and champion the Democratic Party to victory in 2008. I won't be blinded by my premature pledge of allegiance to candidate at this stage.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

Very openly state some of the other possible candidate that they view favorably and would consider enthusiastically supporting, which doesn't jive with your statement: "I simply can't take anyone seriously who has already incorporated a candidate's name or picture in their screen name, avatar, or sig line. IMO, they have identified themselves as a partisan camp follower blinded to other possibilities."

I for example have said for well over a year that I also had very positive feelings for Russ Feingold and Al Gore as possible Presidential candidates. I think Al Gore can make a very good Presidential candidate and a great President, and I am sorry that Russ chose not to run. I have misgivings about Obama's (in my opinion) relative lack of experience, but there is much about him that I could support. In the back of my mind I am keeping an eye on Bill Richardson also as someone who I might some day support if Wes Clark and/or Al Gore don't run or get eliminated. I don't consider that "blinded to other possibilites".

The people who do see them are usually millionaires and lobbyists.

As far as Edwards' support for the war goes- he knows it was a huge mistake and he's acknowledged that.
I personally think he'd be a great asset as a running mate for a presidential candidate.

Some Googling would give anyone interested the name of the organization the name, but I didn't want to bring it into this discussion.

I did give a link to my b-i-l's new venture in my post. He still belongs to the organization in question, but is no longer an officer. He is very busy with this new project and with his patent on making the chicken we consume safer for both us and the chicken.

just on a visceral level. He seems unctious and slippery to me--and as you point out, his list of accomplishments while a senator is pretty much limited to his sponsorship of the Patriot Act. I don't have a dog in this particular primary run, but I do have a short list of candidates I would vote against, given the opportunity. Edwards is one of them.

I have heard stories like that before, and I know that the hawkish accents of some of his speeches and of his convention speech have made me quite uneasy.

that has caused me to feel very, I guess, uncomfortable about John Edwards. It goes back to the first time I saw him interviewed on CSPAN, when he was among the new senators to be sworn in. As time went on, the feeling grew.

Then when he decided to run, or at least let us in on the fact he had decided to run, I started reading more. The more I read, the more it became clear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html



What you are posting is basically no more than an unsubstiantiated rumor concerning John Edwards. It doesn't matter how strenuously you claim it's true; you're an anonymous poster, and can have no more credibility than that. I'm hoping the mods lock or delete this thread as it deserves.

I'm simply stating why I, personally, wouldn't support Edwards and why it has nothing to do with Wesley Clark.

That's allowed.

And, I've quoted nothing of Edwards record that isn't true - complete with links and quotation marks.

Heck, I even told you that my comment wasn't posted to try to get you to NOT vote for Edwards, I was merely stating why I wouldn't.

But, if it gets locked, then fine. I have said my piece and will move on from there.

He is one of the ones I would gladly vote for, among others.

This is a real shame what you are doing. The people pushing Clark, who probably won't run, are posting thread after thread hurting Kerry and Edwards.

candidates. its a revolving door. singling out a certain group is ridiculous.

I have not seen that.

i have "questioned" his history of voting Repub. with disastrous results, but i did try.

Oh, well, that seems to be what they are doing.

positive attention.

don't lump me in there.

Since it is bound to happen in the future.

That is called pre-emption.

Got it.

and incidentally, my chosen candidate gets slammed more than all others combined. i'm not whining.

they are only muckraking.

That seems to be what you are implying. It almost always seems to come to this. Anytime there is discussion on DU that questions John Edwards over anything, the accusation is that Clarkies are behind ALL of it. There are a lot of Clark supporters on DU. They tend to put a premium on what they perceive to be good judgment regarding issues of national security, which is one reason why they support Wes Clark. So it should surprise no one then that some Clark supporters will take issue with John Edwards over that issue. It is part of why they became Clark rather than Edwards supporters in the first place. But the next leap of logic always fascinates me. That is the one that implies that it is only Clark supporters who care about this strongly.

Do you really think that there aren't a good number of DU members who support a candidate other than Clark, or who don't support any candidate, who are not still troubled by John Edward's position leading up to the war in Iraq, and for a period of time after the actual invasion, even if they do accept the fact that he has apologized? Do you really think that ONLY Clark supporters find this a matter worthy of continuing consideration?

Is there something inherently evil about someone thinking that a politician who previously showed what they, in their own opinion, consider to have been a previous grave lapse in judgment over matters of War and Peace, should not now be supported to become our next President, even if that candidate no longer defends their prior position? It's fine to say that you don't agree there was ever a grave lapse in judgment, or that you believe that the lapse has suitably been atoned for and learned from now. Either can be a perfectly coherent and reasonable position to take. But so can be the position of someone who still thinks it is a troubling enough episode that they will not now support Edwards for President. It is a valid issue for people to hold and express opinions on.

You are bigger than that.

There have been so many posts like this lately.

Don't twist honesty into something else.

The attacks here on Edwards, whom I might support, and Kerry, whom I might support, have been escalating.

...IWR. Second of all, look up the poster's history, and see if you really want to group him/her/it with other "Clark supporters."

NGU.

And they will come out of the woodwork.

And if I had the time, I'd scan the names here and publish a list a page long of posters who lurk on nearly every thread about Clark or even tangentially mentioning Clark, and who produce the worst lies and distortions about Clark. Can you say these things with a straight face?

I don't have a choice in 08 yet.

What happened here in 03 is about to be repeated, and since no one else will say it...I will.

You mean the people who supported Dean are about to go postal, attacking everybody else on the board, and suggesting that everyone with an opinon that differs from their own is a Republican plant? Oh goody goody, I can't wait.:eyes:

I'm no longer going to just sit back and watch while you and others play this little game of "let's scapegoat the Clarkies" that you guys are so fond of. From now on, I'm going to say exactly what I think when I see one of those posts.

Just me here now, not many Deaniacs left here.

I can't say why or I will be alerted on and deleted.

People are afraid to tell the truth about how they feel. They get attacked viciously.

I am telling the truth. It is just like 03, just different victims.

I know that a few of them were so militantly obnoxious, and such persistent violators of the civility rules, that they got themselves tombstoned. Then they ran off to other sites where they could stroke each other's feelings of victimization and create a mythology of some sort of "night of long knives" against the Dean supporters.

What goes on in those little echo chambers, and what happens in the real world are two very different things. I still see more positive posts about Dean, fewer negative posts, and more Dean avatars here than for any other single figure in the Democratic party.

True, if you want to go around advocating the theory that Skinner carried out some sort of organized purge of Dean supporters, you probably will get deleted and even tombstoned. Then you'll be able to take that as another piece of "evidence" for your bogus conspiracy theory.

Have a Happy New Year, and I appreciate all the great work you do for our party, even if I don't appreciate all your posts. (I do appreciate most of them, just not the ones of this nature.)

I never used Skinner's name. In fact Skinner has gone out of his way to be fair here to everyone. He always has.

So that is BS.

Clark is just not criticized here. It is just not done.

Different year, two at least different victims, and you simply can not blame former Dean supporters for what you guys are posting. That stretches the limits of imagination. You guys have 3 posts now on the Greatest page blasting other candidates.

That is not right.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Of which we've seen numerous from certain camps in recent days.

to; "the butcher of Kosovo", but why bother listing them all? Everyone has to contend with lies.

Still a Deaniac!

Still here!

And I daresay there are more of us left here than are still active over at the original Site Which Cannot Be Named.

I often forget others are around. I am not welcome at the site which will not be named. I am in the strange world of not really liberal and not really moderate and I have to fit in where I can.

I for one rarely comment here as I have seen too many cases where Clarkies are lumped into a group that is either accused of freeping polls, or unfairly attacking another persons favored candidate. For that reason I am afraid to tell the truth of how I feel about certain candidates.

It's very tempting to just walk off the field and leave it to the bullies, but everybody loses in the long run when you do that (except the bullies, who end up running the place).

I've always found you to be one of the more insightful posters on here, and would hate to see you get run off by such well worn and transparent tactics.

Much better to hit back when you witness that kind of behavior. I'm not going to keep my mouth shut anymore in the face of these pathetic attempts at intimidation, and I hope that you won't either.

I don't bash candidates. I do express reservations and criticisms when I have them. I thought that was an appropriate sort of activity to engage in on a political message board. I don't think that I should be uniquely disqualified from that activity just because of the particular candidate that I have chosen to support.

It's a real shame that you can't see that this is my PERSONAL story regarding why I won't support someone.

It's also a shame that you can't see that it has nothing to do with Clark as it all happened BEFORE I supported Clark. That was the entire point of the post and you somehow missed that.

BTW, I've said nothing denegrating against Kerry. I like him.

And THIS is the post that made you decide to dredge that up??

You are reaching and it isn't helping.

How are we suppose to know if these accusations are true or not?

to believe it or not.

It's my personal story. I don't need a link for that. I'm telling it first person.

You don't have to believe it, but I know it's true, so that's all that matters - to me - and my one vote.

family and it's not divisive. She made it clear from the beginning that it was personal. Kudos to her for sharing it with us.

There's nothing in her post that would make me think for a second she has any other motivation but to tell the truth of a personal account about an experience someone in her family had about Edwards. I'm glad she told us.

Besides, Clark2008 has been around a long time and I don't remember her ever running around with the rumor mill crowd or tossing out wild exagerrations of any kind. What, if something personal happens to us regarding a particular candidate, we're not supposed to share it? Gimme a break. Are personal experiences not allowed? I think the worst that should happen in cases like this is that you can either believe the incident or not...or just wonder about it and take it with a grain of salt. I happen to believe her story, but it's not like I would shut the door on Edwards or anything because of someone's personal account of him.

.

I simply got tired of people assuming I don't like Edwards because I support Clark. That's not the reason.

I like Gore, I like Obama, I like the Kooch, I like a lot of others, my screen name not-with-standing.

I don't like Edwards for personal reasons.

Others can like him or not like him. This is just the reason I don't. Me. Me and my one vote.

Thanks.

political support yet?

He moved onto the arts community and is spreading the word through the Five Faith's organziation.

How very sad. Deja vu all over again.

Edwards is a trial attorney

Hillary let her husband get away with a blow job

And when it comes down to it I am not convinced enough people will vote to elect a woman. Subtract the percentage of voters who hate her guts, and I believe it's way too close to be comfortable.

Clark is so squeaky clean he hasn't even tried pot.

They will take the thing that Clark is most proud of and rub his face (and ours) in it. Do not kid yourself, anybody in the '08 race is going to get attacked viciously. Even Clark. He has never been elected to anything. He is career military, which they will somehow turn into a negative. He has made comments that can be parsed to 'go both ways' on issues. Believe me, these are not reasons for me, but they will be blown into 'reasons' by THEM.

and he is not currently prehated by a certain percentage. Obama is hated by racists and could be hated by people who are likely Muslim haters by association.

Hillary is hated by anyone who hates the clenis, her husband, Hillary Care, or the fact she let a man cheat on her and didn't divorce him. She is also hated by homophobes who have been convinced she is a lesbian.

Edwards will be hated by anyone who buys into frivolous lawsuits are the source of all problems.

The main negative I heard they had on Clark is he is arrogant.

On the plus side he has never voted for anything on the floor of the house or senate and they can't say he raised taxes or dodn't vote for funding for troops or weapon systems.

Did I mention he has never ever even smoked pot and he's neither AWOL or a draft dodger?

to be POTUS, IMHO.

You can't rule a country of people you don't know diddly about.

U.S. Grant. (glug, glug,...snort, snort)

I'd rather have a 62 year old, Rhodes scholar, West Point valedictorian, Silver Star winner, author, and peace-maker as President.

You know, someone who would rappel down a ravine, while being shot at, to search for survivors of a Jeep wreck

No life experience? HAH!

but I do not think that forgiving an unfaithful husband should be one of them. We should judge her by her politics, pure and simple.

That being said, I would not vote for her because of her support for the war and her support of a flag burning amendment. She has generally shifted to the center and this caused me to re-evauluate my support of her.

It is the irrational perecentage of the electorate that you have to think about and then start peeling off a certain number of percentage points.

Trust me, Blackwell lost a certain percentage of white republicans to the white dem Strickland as did Swann and Steele.

As irrational as it seems Kerry did not get the votes of Jane Fonda haters.

I've met and spoken with you in person. I've seen you refer to these events before, but never at this level of detail, and I appreciate it.

Elizabeth Dole met with your BIL, but Edwards didn't?

I'm a Clark partisan too, but I don't decieve myself that he's not a long shot to get the nomination. I could at this point easily and enthusiastically support Al Gore. I'm also getting more and more impressed with Obama, and could definitely see myself getting behind him.

My biggest issue is the war, and I would have a real problem getting behind anyone who supported the IWR, or thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Eward's support for the war in the last primary was absolutely unequivocal, and his conversion to saying he regretted his vote struck me as very contrived. His recent statements do not show any consistency with his past statements, and he does not give any sense of what kind of personal growth or epiphanies he's gone through to bring about his change of heart. It doesn't have an authentic feel for me, though I acknowledge that I can't know what's in his heart.

Thank you for posting your personal story, as I find all such things very helpful in looking at potential candidates.:hi:

(whew, that's going back) you told this story and it resonated so much that I never forgot it. That coupled with the Hugh Shelton debacle really stuck out about Edwards. The IWR vote was the first reason my BS detector went off and it was the beginning of my profound disappointment in Kerry and Hillary. That was actually worse because I thought they were the adults and both were future presidents in my mind. Thank you for sharing this, not many people knew why it was so personal to you and I was always torn about saying why. It is your story to tell and you did it again beautifully.

Still love the picture of your son being shown how to salute by the General of Goodness, himself. All the best in 2007, especially with the new one on the way! :hug:

forbids the government from promoting any religion. While the majority of the citizens in the US should learn more about Islam, it should not be a government-endorsed activity.

Separation of church and state goes for mosques, synagogues and temples too.

but, yes, the focus was on Islam after 9/11. And I completely understand what you're saying. I've left two churches in five years because they keep trying to tell me who to vote for. I don't like that.

But, this organization wasn't looking for anyone to "endorse" Islam. They were simply looking for their governmental leaders and their fellow citizens to understand the cultures associated with Islam AND Arabs, considering there was this big drumbeat to go to war against people of this faith and culture at the time.

I believe it would have been helpful for, not only our citizens, but for the people making the decisions to go to war against Iraq to understand more about Islam, the culture, the people and the environment surrounding all of that.

So, there was already a government-funded precedent - the impending war - that preceded their want of funding and/or understanding.

Hope that makes sense.

And I endorse the goals of the group. But I know that it is not the type of thing that any elected official should be associated with in a capacity associated with their office.

all to at least hear their concerns.

Whether Edwards could have helped or not is immaterial.

Edwards meets with Christian organizations in his constituency and speaks proudly of it. What's so wrong with meeting with his Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist constituents?

I don't think Edwards can be painted as against religions other than Christianity. So there must have been a reason why he did not meet with the Muslim group. Perhaps because he wanted to avoid being tarred and feathered as a sympathizer, in a country where every issue in the media is framed as "us vs them'? Maybe it would be seen as too controversial, too adversarial, too "leftist"--or whatever spin a conservative climate and media would have put on it?

after 9-11...it was a little too late to suddenly expect conciliatory gestures towards Muslims, don't you think? It had to play out, which it has...and hopefully there can be better understanding of Islam in the future. But to expect this right after 9-11 is unrealistic IMO. It would have been political suicide for many candidates.

that the OP was quite clear that he/she was focusing on Islam and not on reducing discrimination against people based on race, national origin, religion, etc. The latter might have been a legitimate activity for Edwards to be involved in.

What's next, asking Edwards (or Kucinich, or Obama, or Clinton, or ???) to help distribute Gideon Bibles and then attacking them for not agreeing to do so?

The point is that he didn't meet with an organization representing the concerns of some of his constituents.

If Edwards had just met with them, listened to their concerns and then told them, based on whatever reason, that he couldn't fund it or that he wouldn't help, then at least he would have been there to be what he's supposed to be - a sounding-board, a representative of ALL the people of North Carolina.

It matters not that he could or couldn't fund such a project. What matters is that he IGNORED their requests for a meeting, particularly at a pivotal and emotional moment like the months following 9/11.

He meets with Christian organizations on a regular basis. So, why wouldn't he meet with organizations for other faiths, or, in the case, from multi-faiths?

to concerns of their constituents, or at the least have a staff member explain the S/C's position on the issue. However, I agree with those who think the possibility of a meeting with a Senator on ANY issue is remote (given they have far more constituents than Congresspeople do), even though I saw that you said your b-i-l was successful in persuading some other Congresspeople to meet. I can also understand reluctance, given the way your OP was phrased--that they didn't want to meet to discuss concerns, but rather that they wanted to meet to discuss how "to orchestrate an initiative that would help educate the people of North Carolina and the country about Islam, as well as other faiths that weren't, well, Southern Baptist or something known to most Southerners." I don't know about his meetings with any Christian organizations or how he/his staff makes the decision--is it on the basis of issues? Size of group? Has he ever met with any atheist, agnostic, etc. groups; the non-religious outnumber many other religious groups, including those of the Jewish faith. There are currently lawsuits pending by some groups representing those concerned with separation of church and state about entanglements with religion. So the fact that an initiative would include education about multiple religions, unless it also included education about atheism, etc., would not address their concerns about establishment.

What did he/his staff say in response to the request?

All I have ever gotten out of any of my Congresscritters is a letter/email (usually sent about NRDC/environmental concerns). I should note that the esteemed FORMER Senator Allen never responded to any of my letters or emails.

So it is hard to assess what the real concern is.

but I do feel that there is a legitimate role for the government in protecting minority groups, including religious minorities, from acts of persecution. In the aftermath of 9/11, Muslims and Arabs, and even people suspected of being Muslims or Arabs, were getting harrassed, threatened, and attacked. I think this probably was a legitimate concern for elected representatives to address, as it would have been had it been any other religious minority.

It should of course have been done in such a way as to not appear to be endorsing any religion, but I don't think that would have been particularly difficult. JMHO.

a legitimate role in having the government protect all groups, including religious groups. However, it is worth noting that there are already many laws on the books doing just that. The need of the day is not having Congress pass more laws, it is having those responsible for enforcement taking every step needed to ensure people's safety. And that is the role of the Department of Justice.

In 1998, my nephew was savagely attacked by a racist hate group. I have friends who hold offices in the state assembly and senate. It would not have been proper for them to take public stances on the case. It was a law enforcement issue, meaning the judicial branch of government. When some of the local officials (a DA and a Justice of the Peace)and a state official (the republican Attorney General) showed themselves willing to take a brutal attack on a brown-skinned person seriously, it became an issue for the US Department of Justice.

These are issues that I take very, very seriously. But I think Edwards did the correect thing.

The more I watched him on C-SPAN during the primary campaign, the less I liked the guy! Edwards was originally my "second choice" behind Clark before I knew too much about him, but he then quickly dropped totally off my list. I eventually saw Edwards later in the 2004 campaign at a Kerry/Edwards event and wasn't overly impressed with him there, either. At this event, author Stephen King was acting as a better surrogate for Kerry than Edwards was.

with John Edwards.

In fact they endorsed him as VP in 2004.

http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=1830

Just because he didn't spearhead an educational program about Islam doesn't necessarily mean that his holding office would be a bad thing for minorities in America.
It would mean quite the opposite, in my opinion.

I think Edwards has learned his lesson about making decisions based on political expediency.

...if that was even the reason he didn't meet with your brother in law.

what choice did them have?

and expressing their views in other ways.

Or they could simply not endorse anyone.

was for KERRY/edwards. They preferred KERRY as President - and likely gave little or no consideration to the VP.

what all would be involved if he/she voted for an elective war and how that would effect the culture and the people involved in this war.

It's a small part of the war decision, but it's a valid part considering Bush was going around calling the war a "crusade." :scared:

you were asking a US senator to play a central role in educating the public about religion that is not right it is also very Machiavellian.

his constituents and LISTEN to their concerns.

Whether he could have helped or not is immaterial.

You've missed the point.

the poster clear states that her group wants to teach people about Islam. And in my book that is the same thing as promoting it.

I find many personal experiences are more informative than listening to all the hot air ALL politicians spew. Your post along with my own research will help me decide who to vote for.

Although he didn't meet with your b.i.l., we really don't know why he chose not to. With that thanks again for having the courage to share your experience.

I found the various posts of other DU members quite rude and unforgiving... it just shows how much the extreme left is like the extreme right....

as it stands... I am hoping beyond hope Gore would run again... other than that I think the field is wide open...

:toast:

picking any candidate to support until after the primaries. But, everyone, please remember that EVERY politician has staff who filters ALL communication that the politician receives. If the staff member doesn't think it's important, the politician will not find our about it. This is why every lobbyist tries to get invited to every function possible, it's to talk to the politician, face to face, without his staff protecting him. I don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. I do know that if the politician didn't have to raise money for his re-election, he'd have more time to listen to his constituents.

zalinda

aren't interested in your opinion of John Edwards. Why? Because we're trying to fathom how you can support someone like Clark, when you know that he raved so dementedly in terms of what Bush was to exult over, in slightly more sober tones with the words, "Bring 'em on!", as he stood on that aircraft carrier, under a banner boasting, "Mission accomplished!"

"What sort of judgement on Clark's part does that reflect?" is the question we ask; and inevitably therefore, on your part?

That direct quotation of Clark, which I quoted in an earlier post of yours concerning John Edwards, virtually provided the template for Bush's premature victory celebration on the aircraft carrier, respectively, in terms of both his own words and the legend on the banner.

Here it is again: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today (in other words, "Mission accomplished!"). Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact, (in other words, elliptically, "Bring 'em on! )

And how about his stated enthusiasm for spreading American values in South America via the School of the Americas? Which values would they be? Worship mammon and devil take the hindmost? Funnel more and more of the national product upwards to fewer and fewer beneficiaries, while consigning more and more Americans to poverty and/or destitution?

But, here goes...

The U.S. and British combined forces in April 2003 were virtually unchallengeable.
So Clark's 'gee whiz' statement was actually a fact.

That is no longer the case.
Bush saw to that.
He destroyed the U.S. military's dominance by pushing it into doing something it was never meant to do.

It was meant to defeat armies. (when the right decisions are being made, armies of countries that actually threaten the United States)

The military was not made to occupy a country after an illegal invasion.

Clark knew enough to know this, as he stated in a 2002 Time op-ed.

"...we must do everything possible to prepare for some unpleasant possibilities. . . . After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building?"

I don't see how advising other countries to not challenge U.S./British forces, before the war even started, is the same as saying "bring 'em on" four months into the occupation.

Of course the military does have it's share of greedy and evil bastards. That's how shit like torture manuals get into the curriculum.

Clark was wrong in defending the School of the Americas and he should realize that and admit it publicly.

What does all this mumbo-jumbo have to do with a senator listening to his constituents?

No matter how this conversation goes, I admire you for that.

in all of the primaries in which they both competed AFTER Feb. 3; the article you cite includes only the New Hampshire primary and the Feb. 3 primaries. There were three days of primaries shortly afterward: Feb. 7, 8, 10. On these dates, Edwards finished ahead of Clark in Michigan, Washington, Maine, Tennessee and Virginia, although both finished far behind Kerry. Clark withdrew on Feb. 11.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/primary/

Tactics that seem reminiscent of the * Administration do not belong here.

the poster is delusional to think that Clark beat Edwards when if fact Edwards had more delegates then Clark.

Because the media is the reason that Clark wasn't allowed to do well after mini Tuesday. So he may have come in 3rd place in both Virginia and Tennessee....but most of that was orchestrated based on how the media reported on the primaries just prior. By the time Clark had won Oklahoma, Judy Woodruff on CNN actually stated that Donations to the Clark campaign should now stop. I couldn't believe the obvious puppeteering of our elections by media Whores...and it really was what told me that the media was not only biased but actually manipulating our election process much more than I originally believed.

"I'm a Wesley Clark fan", rather than, say, "supporter", "voter",
& etc.

it struck me as a little strange.

Snip>fan 2
noun
a person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular sport, art form, or famous person<snip
It strikes me as honest self appraisal, not strange. My self, I'm a, well, look at my avatar.

I (probably) am a hillary supporter.

that was the distinction I was making.

You don't have a strong interest in her? That doesn't seem very supportive. I guess that is what the (probably) means. Clark 2008, as her nom de plume implies, is an admirer of, and has a strong interest in Wes Clark. Trying to dismiss her account because of a term you define in your own mind is insincere IMO. I am a fan of the Dixie Chicks also, even before they blasted w.

but I don't belong to her personality cult.

I am not "dismissing" anything. I am drawing a distinction.
I think the difference between "political supporter" and "fan"
is crucial. it goes to the very core of where these candidate
wars begin to totally lose focus.

I am also a "fan" of the dodgers. they can do no wrong in my
opinion, and I am unquestioningly faithful to them. now do you
begin to see the potential problem?

It was a shorter word. Really, there wasn't anything to it. The post wasn't about Clark.

I was probably picking nits, anyway, but I have been thinking
for quite a few weeks that many of us (myself included, more
than likely) consider ourselves to be more "personally connected"
to their candidates than may be productive. I have been searching
for the reasoning behind it for a good long time, and I just thought
perhaps I saw something.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and yet provocative; how were the other 14 posts?:eyes:

Welcome to DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3034768&mesg_id=3035099

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3034768&mesg_id=3035437

And of course stuff like that tends to call into question everything else you say.

I obviously don't like Edwards much for the reasons stated above, so the fact that I cracked a couple of jokes on his behalf shouldn't be surprising.

????????

Why should that call into question anything?

Sorry. I don't get your post.

You said Edwards said that "Christians are the only ones to rebuild the country." The referenced quote from his speech says nothing of the sort. I don't find it funny. I don't know why anyone would. It seems to me like a dishonest smear of a Democratic candidate - a smear that people who hadn't bothered to read the thread or didn't read the whole thing might have been misled by.

Oddly reminiscent of what Bushistas did to Gore with the internet quote, don't you think?

By the way, I never requested the personal acquaintance of Senator Edwards in 2003, but I did send him a series of angry emails in response to his position on the Patriot Act and the IWR. He responded to every single one of them; the slowest response took less than two weeks. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you.

And unless you give further details, even the prima facie account doesn't stand for what you want people to believe - how do we know it's not a scheduling issue? And, in any event, you now say that no other politicians agreed to meet with your b-i-l... doesn't that suggest it's perhaps more difficult to get such meetings than you might think?

P.S. How can you call into question my reading abilities when even you suggest my error is taking your "jokes" - which have no indication of being such - at face value?... If you want to compare LSAT scores, though, shoot...

It proves that the OP is not credible on the issue of Edwards.

Because I think people need to see the stuff that will go on here until 08.

This is hurting all of us.

democracy is messy sometimes, especially at democratic underground.

I just love being a boogyman.:eyes:

because he recognizes that radical Islam is a threat to our very existence. I would support him as a second choice.

Radical Islam is not the greatest threat to America, not by a long shot.

I like Edwards' populism, Clark's pedigree, Obama's optimism, Clinton's intelligence, and Kucinich's heart.

Some of them aren't as electable, some of them are too polarizing, and some of them seem to draw out the worst in their supporters by appealing to their worst elements... but PERSONALLY, I like them all.

according to an Edwards supporter on this board, and now this.

Very troubling. Thank you for posting this. You're right, it has NOTHING to do with Clark (although of course from my username some will assume it does).

He never said any such thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3034415&mesg_id=3034415

See my comments there.

Not Islam itself.

Islamic fundamentalism is to Islam as Christian fundamentalism is to Christianity.

if it is the thread that I am thinking about the poster did not back up his claims with links.

"I think what America has focused a great deal on the last few years violent radical Islam as a great threat to America - and it is a very serious issue - but the second serious issue that's got very little attention is the emergence of China as a huge economic and military force. Their military is largely opaque. We don't know what they're doing in China militarily. And our distraction -- not just a distraction, but an important issue - but our focus, our obsession, you should say - with radical Islam, which is important because we have to survive... the planet has to survive... But it's led us away from dealing with the other huge challenge which America faces, which is the growth and emergence of China."

This is after a monologue by Edwards on the economy, during which he promotes improvements in education, so the context is focusing on China as an economic threat.

This is readily available in video format on MSNBC. You really shouldn't ask other people to disprove your accusations; either you have the juice, or you don't make the claim.

Click http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15925398/ ... then click "Edwards on the Economy."

x

hence the avatar- and his posts complaining of attacks on Hillary.

First is his sponsorship of the Patriot Act and second is his giving up his Senate seat in 2004 and letting the GOP take it. What really galls me that if he was still in the Senate we would have 52 seats and LIEberman would be rendered impotent.

Sorry, but these strikes really turn me against Edwards.

He chose to run for president and correctly made the decision that it was unfair to try to run for reelection while he was running for president. So he announced more than a year before the election that he wouldn't run for reelection and allowed the state Dem party to run a new candidate.

It wasn't his fault that Erskine Bowles ran a poor campaign and blew a 5-point lead in the last week of the campaign.

Both he and Kerry let us down last time when they knew Ohio was stolen and both said not a peep. Sorry, I'll look elsewhere for someone who WILL stand up to the Nazi Republicans!

If you live somewhat locally, read the papers and are of any degree an activist, as I am in the environmental community; you began to learn of this early on.

Here is a snip from the Independent Weekly back in October of 2002 concerning Peace Activists that wanted to meet with him:

snip
-------------------------------------
Woolford looked deflated, as if he'd expected Edwards, though on the other side of the issue politically, would nonetheless want to have a relationship with the protesters. They were, after all, his constituents. More than that, most of them voted for him when he unseated right-winger Lauch Faircloth in '98. Right on cue, someone down the hall shouted, "We put you in!"
-------------------------------------
snip

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/PrintFriendly?oid=oid%=oid%3A18330

The Muslim gentleman of which the OP speaks was a professional studying at the local Veterinarian School which is in the same city that John Edwards lived at the time. I think at the very least, there should have been a letter of explanation of why a meeting would not be advisable or would have to be postponed, etc. Simply an acknowledgment would have been better than nothing.

has to do with the fact that very few representatives actually represent our views as hardcore (not centrist) Liberals. All the Dem candidates must walk that tightrope. This is the legacy of all these years of Rethuglican domination.

--wouldn't Edwards be much more reachable than McCain or any Repub on these matters? He did change his mind on the war, after all. There are a couple of Dems that I'd have to hold my nose to vote for, but I fully intend to do so anyway.

And his lightening-quick temper. Your personal story of Edwards further illuminates.

Though at this point, given a choice of just Edwards or Obama/Hilary...???

Yet it IS too early in the game, and many have not yet stepped forward formally to announce their candidacy. As they say, "Only time'll tell..."

And I'm certainly not going to decide who to support based on whether that candidate supported some Muslim organization. You don't get everything you want in politics - get used to it.

Edwards has flaws but he speaks positively about some issues that matter to many, specifically the widening class chasm in America.

Wes Clark paraded around with Mladic, voted for Reagan and Bush 41 and only recently became a Dem. He wasn't exactly outspoken in his opposition to the Partiot Act and in September 2003, not long after he announced his candidacy, he said he probably would have voted for the IWR. How convenient.

I like Hillary but she hasn't exactly been progressive on the Patriot Act and the IWR.

And the jury is still out on Barack. He opposed the War but I see a lack of foreign policy experience in some of his policy presciptions. We'll see.

I'm not for anyone yet but after reading this post I doubt I'll be supporting Wes Clark anytime soon, though if he wins the nomination I'll certainly have to support him. Nice way to build coalitions. Good job.

I am glad to have info on all candidates. I then will put it all through the combine and figure out a person to support in the primary.

What I won't do is vote Repug or Green.


Even if I have to hold my nose.



(My fav was Feingold)

years of the kerry's. they try to be coy and cute with them. easy digs not necessary. i dont agree with that behavior. i dont want it in president. i dont respect it. it shows something of character. i am disapointed they couldnt have been a better person in this in respect. had to show disrespect. both he and his wife.

that being said, if he wins (i dont think he will) i will vote

Please illumninate us on this?

What did Wes and Clark say?

Last I heard it was more of what Edwards and his wife have been saying in the form of little digs against the Kerry's..........both in Elizabeth's book as well as on some public appearances on Hardball and just this Sunday on This Week.

i think i must have been thinking clark because of another thread. of course edwards, not clark. i would easily vote clark

belittling the Kerry's.

and cannot correct. dont have a clue why i had typed clark. maybe cause of another thread talking about clark not running, and i was still thinking about him. if kerry doesnt run i want clark. yes i was talking about the jabs from edwards.

sorry

if and when the time may come to make a decision about him.

I am sorry that the Senator from North Carolina wouldn't see your b-i-l, but the IWR and Patriot Act are irrelevant to the story. Considering you later said you could support Hillary or Biden, I am puzzled why you brought in Edwards' votes in on bills that they supported, too.

Seems to me that there are netroots folks in touch with the Edwards camp. Maybe he would be willing to talk about this now. It's best to get both sides of the story before judging. And maybe, with blogs as powerful as they are, your b-i-l could get that meeting, even if he is no longer a senator.